The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from WS Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Castle, I think it has already been explained on here that we had a new Chairman earlier this year, and as Keith Riley is currently standing in as acting CEO we don't need to hurry to look for a new one until KR wants to step down. I am hoping that won't happen until we have the Protos DMG up and running.
I had forgotten about that article and I know that Keith is very keen on computerised fluid dynamics. It's certainly very encouraging and I hope they can move forward quickly with it. Nevertheless, to what extent they will be able to get funding from institutions or banks, we will have to wait and see.
MJA, About mid December Keith said that he hoped that Peel and PHE would be able to finalise the JV agreement for the SPV fairly soon. I expect there are a few issues to resolve in that agreement, not least how much funding the two companies will have to contribute to the SPV and how much will be equity (for the shares) and how much will be loans.
And before they can finalise all of that they will have to know what the total funding for the SPV will be to cover its Capex and working capital, and how much of that will be available from commercial sources i.e. cor[orate investors, financial institutions and/or banks. Only then will they know how much funding will have to be provided by the two parent companies.
My own personal feeling is that they will have difficulty persuading financial institutions or banks to invest in (or lend to) a FOAK because there is no track record of this particular plant at commercial scale, and these organisations are usually reluctant to take that sort of risk. Unless Keith can give them a very convincing story, which I'm sure he can!
When Keith mentioned the commercial funding he was talking about how the SPV would be funded. I'm not aware of how PHE will fund it's 50% shareholding of the SPV, nor indeed how much PHE and Peel will have to put into the SPV out of their own money. The entire funding arrangement has yet to be decided, I believe.
The first news I'm expecting is that they have selected the contractor (or contractors) for the construction of the buildings and installation of the plant. That may be one contractor, or two. As Peel still owns 100% of the SPV, that is down to Peel at the moment. But I'm also hoping to hear very shortly that Peel and PHE have finalised the SPV agreement so that they will each have 50%.
That's just stupid!
Well that's encouraging haggis, the government's number of 5 times today's number of fuel pumps isn't a million miles away from my back-of-envelope calculation of 3.75 times! What's really encouraging is that the government seems to have given it some serious thought. And of course if they have any difficulty meeting that target in time, then I'm sure that AFC/ABB will be only too happy to help!
(Continued...)
Then many, or perhaps most, of the commercial vehicles that currently use the same petrol/diesel pumps that are used by cars will be powered by hydrogen-FC. Let’s call that a quarter, just to throw in a number. So now we can bring our multiple down from 10x to 7.5x. It’s getting better!
Now although the government and many individual seem to hold the opinion that it is only commercial vehicles I.e. vans, trucks, buses etc. that will be using hydrogen as fuel, and that cars will all be EVs, there is nevertheless a school of thought (including myself) supporting the belief that a large percentage of cars will also be using hydrogen fuel, especially those who travel long distances, and that EVs will be used mainly for city runs and short distances. What percentage of EVs? Impossible to say at the moment, but I believe that the numbers will rise rapidly once hydrogen filling stations become available, especially considering the convenience of filling up in a few minutes as opposed to an hour or so! Let’s say in the long run, perhaps 50%. So now we can reduce our 7.5x multiple down to 3.75x.
Well that’s much better, but it is still adds up to a huge number of charging points. And of course, the number of EVs on the road is likely to increase more rapidly than the number of charging points in the short term. More EV charge rage to come, I fear!
I have just had a thought. (Yes, dangerous, I know!) If, as some believe, most of the cars on the road in the next 1—20 years are to be EVs, has anyone worked out how many charging points will be required throughout the country at service stations, supermarkets etc., compared to the number of petrol/diesel pumps that we have at present? I thought I would have a go at estimating this!
Google tells me that on average a car occupies a pump for about 5-7 minutes, from time of arrival until the driver pays and drives off. I assume that on average this will be to fill about 80% - 85% of the tank as most drivers will not wait until the tank is empty. Of course this doesn’t cover time waiting to get to the pump.
Now the time that it takes to fully charge an EV will vary enormously depending on the make and model of the car etc. but to use an example Google tells me a Tesla with a range of 238 miles will charge empty to full in 2 hours using a 43-50kw rapid charger. So in order to compare with filling a petrol/diesel tank 80%, to charge from 20% to 100% will take 96 minutes. And that’s how long the car would be occupying the charging point if it was being charged 80% all at one go. That is about 13-19 times as long as the petrol/diesel comparison. (Let’s call it 15 times as long, for simplicity!)
Admittedly it is unlikely that the car would be standing at a single charging point for that length of time, it would probably do it at several locations along the way in bursts of say 20-30 minutes each. But it doesn’t matter, that is the total amount of time that it would be occupying a charging point in order to charge 80% of its battery. That is a direct comparison to the petrol/diesel car above.
That would suggest that if the service stations and supermarkets etc. are to provide the same service to the EV drivers that is currently enjoyed by the petrol/diesel drivers, they would need to provide about 15 times as many EV charging points as there are petrol/diesel pumps at present. And that would require an enormous increase in the amount of space!
However, it may not be as bad as that. First, many of the EV’s will be charged at home, probably overnight, but we have to bear in mind that there will be many drivers who will not have access to a charging point at home, or near home. So it’s a pure guess, but let’s say that one third of drivers will have access to this facility. So we can reduce the 15x multiple by a third, to 10x.
Then many, or perhaps most, of the commercial vehicles that currently use the same petrol/diesel pumps that are used by cars will be powered by hydrogen-FC. Let’s call that a quarter, just to throw in a number. So now we can bring our multiple down from 10x to 7.5x. It’s getting better!
(Continued ...)
Boffin, the DMG at Protos won't be doing mixed waste, it will be plastic only.
It's true that the DMG can handle almost any kind of waste, but only one kind at a time, because all of the "settings" have to be set for each type of material in order to maximise the best mix of syngas.
DW: " they do not finish their work and specially in time"
This is not AFC's project, it is VARD's. so AFC can only deliver the fuel cells when required by the shipbuilder. But I wouldn't expect VARD to drag their feet on this project, I'm sure that if anyone can do it, they can. VARD are not Ferguson Marine!
AFC is mentioned in this link:
https://www.offshore-energy.biz/zerocoaster-ammonia-powered-cargo-ship-wins-dnv-aip/
This is big! AFC's other projects could be dwarfed by this. Ships running Diesel engines are massive polluters and if the net zero targets are to be met it is essential that we get ships off diesel and on to hydrogen. If anyone can pull this off, Vard can, and it is great that AFC is associated with them.